Da Seri P Ion of Facilities and Centers Built
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
113 a70 882 0 11 637 TaTL_E tdew Places for the Arts. Book Two. I !I S 'V I T III 1O E1 ucatior_ al Facilities Labs., Inc. ,Nair York, N.Y. National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. POE DATE 78 NOT 61p. ;Fora rslated document,S_ e -EC 1 078; Cover may he illegible A Nkr LA BLi F Educational Facilities Laboratories, S50 -Third Avenue, Nev York, New York 10022( /3.00 prepaid EKES PRI CE 1 101 Plus Pcsta 9,e. EC Not Available from DFS. tr"--7,- 'OR5 *Arts Centers; *Build irg Design; Building Plans ; Construction Costs; *Facility Guidelines; *Museums; *Performance Specifications; *Thra ter5-: A asT Da seri p ionof facilities and centers built so cif icaliy for the arts and completed during the 1970s are included _ thicatal.oguc--a sequel, to one punished tvc years ago. The desc ri pt .ono cf each building includes a brief listing of the speciflcat:tor:s, C' 3t, architects and other consultantE respoasible fc:the. design, and an information contact. Floor plans accompany t gr-eat najo-:iiry of the descriptions; hohever, a few certain pot ogr-..ah.5.Twenty buildings are categorized aE a its centers, 20 as truEe um A, and 19 as performing arts (MLF) * * *** *** * * * * * * * * *** s supplied by EDEare the best that can be made. from thorig ral document. **************** *********** ************* * The h tic sal Frsdawment lot the Arta War, established by Cc:mg-Tessin19E5 to foster the ,growth and development of the art% theUnited Stares, to preserve and enrich the rtati an's cultural le:No:mars and to provide opportunitiesfor wader expetience toall the artG Endsterment For TineFills Littingsu;;='diddle, Jr Chairmen The fraciatreirture Envirmirnentai Arts d to support exemplarydesign ef bra aria a) stimulate active: public interest in the quality etthe built 0:11iroatariectthrough grgnts to indlandtiOandnonprofitorganiza- tions tn the !lads of architecture,planning.1,-,ndscape architecture,and interior and Industrial design ijartioesal Endowment For mat Arts Architecture + EntritormaorttsilArta Roy F. Knight, Acting Director Echcaliundr, FIcAties Ltd oratories tS a nonprofit corpcustionestablished rn 1938 4 The, Ford Foundation to encourage .andguide constructive change in educationand related facilities. Piscatorial Facilities !Jabot-clitoris's Alen C Green. President The protect is supported with a grant ham 1 National Endowment forthe Arts ciWashington,D C a tcderdlagency. Copies of shut reportare available Jar' $3.S.0 prepaidfront EFL. 8-- Aver-it-to,Neer York, N.Y. 10022 Fmk prmi np April 1978 19.26 oy tatiCalWeal FaCli Mee LabOtetcietal Contents triustansiumzer . E4MISSI=31 ',cats Centers Abilene Civic Center, Abilene, 'Texas 5 Civic Center of Onondaga County, N.Y 6 Clark Arts Center, Rockford, ill. 7 Fine Arts Center, NorthlielJ, Minn. 8 Fine Arts Center, Allentown, Pa. 9 Hampshire Arts Village, Amherst, Mass. 10 Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio Humanities and Fine Arts Center, Morris, Minn. Iowa State Center, Amos., Iowa 12 LiM Art Center, Clinton, N.Y. 13 Mabee Fine Arts Center, Arkadelphia, Ark. 14 Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, Minneapolis, Minn. Mettler Antonia McHugh Fine Arta Center, St. Paul, Minn. 16 Perimming Arts Center, Purchase, N.Y. 17 Paul Mellon Center for the Arts, Wallingford., Conn. 18 Phoenix Civic Plaza, Phoenix, Ariz, 19 Rang Center, Atnreapolis, Minn. 20 Sacramento Community Center, Sacramento, Calif. 21 Saginaw Civic Center, Saginaw, Mich. 21 Tulsa Performing Arts Center, Tulsa, Okla. 22 Mu-Sotinis Art and Ar,:,hitecture Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 23 Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts. Columbus, Ohio 24 Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colo. 25 Elvehjern Art Center, Madison, Wis. 26 Chaffey Corn_munity College Museurn-Gallety, Alta Loma, Calif. 27 Florida State Museum, Gainesville, Fla. 27 Fort Worth Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas 28 Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Ithaca, N.Y. 28 Hunter Museum el Art, k7lhattanooga, Tenn. a9 Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, Ind. Milwaukee Art Center, Milwaukee, Wis, Mummers' Museum, Philadelphia, Pa, Roy Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase, N.Y. 33 Smith College lAuseurit cat Art, Northarnpton, Mass_ 34 Southeastern Cutter for Contemporary Art, Winston - Salem,, 35 The Stark Museum of Art, Orange, Texas 36 The University of California Art Museum, Berkeley, Calif. 7 University Museum Academic Wing, Philadelphia, Pa. 36 Worcester Art Museum Education Wing, Worces Mass. 5 Yale Center or British Art, New Haven, Conn. 40 Performing Arts Angus Rowrner Theatre, Ashland, Oreg. 41 Art.'Music Hall Budding, Pueblo, Colo. 42 Artpark Theatre, Lewiston, N.Y. 43 B !den Payne Theatre, Austin, TOXaS 44 Aladdin Theatre fir the Per.ltatmLng Arts Les Vets, Nev 45 Concrird CoricLnrd, Cant 45 Dowry Theatre. Downy, Calif 46 East County Perlorming Arts Cew,er, El (aril. Cala 47 FuArts Complex, Missbm. Cald Hartford Stage Company. Hartford, Caro 49 Leeward Community College Theatre, Pearl City Fiewati 50 Lily Peter Auditorium, Helena. Ark 51 Lour i3 Myer Theater, Santa Clara, Calif 52 Marytriount Manhattan College Tne.6tre, New York, N" 53 PictxStaiger Concert Hell, Evanston, El 54 Salinas Commurirty Center. Salinas, Cl 55 Power Center irrr the Pertorming Arts, Ann Arbor, Mili:h 56 SoathwiLk !Music Annex, Burlingtion, Vt 56 Stewart Theatre, Raleigh, N C 57 Lutroduction This catalogue of facrlities and centers built speci- fica.tly for the arts and completed! during the 1970s isone inseries of reports on arts facilities developed by EFL, with support from the Architecture Environmental Arts Pro- gram of the National Endowment for the Arts. Other reports in the series are described at the end of the book. New Places for the Axis, Book Two and its predecessor Mew Places for the Arts (publIsh2ect two years ago) dramatize the commitment to facilities made by arts organizations and agencies all over the countrya commitment whichis having a significant impact on the quality of life and the physical environment of many neighborhoods and -urban centers. Before building new arts .lacilitres, the people who axe going to operate and use them should be closely solved in the cess of planning the places. Since few arts administrators get an opportunity to help plan more than ono new arts center, there aren't many experienced people (apart nom design consultants) taking part in the planning process. And, since there aren't many places where one can learn the process, arts administrators often find that they don't get all they really want in a new building. To improve this unproductive situation, two organiza- tions ran a weekend workshop in Cincinnati at the end of 1977. The workshop, called a -Design-In,- was cosponsored by the American Council for the Arts and the American Institute of Architects, and received a grant from the Archi- lecture Environmental Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts. For two days architects and arts adrv.rustrators jointly explored the process of designing a community arts center. The architects learned at first hand what arts people want and expect from facilities, and the administrators discovered how to get in tune with what architects are striving for: The emphasis of a Design-In is on the process of interchanging information and ideas since the final result cannot be an absolute solution to any community's ''real lite" problem Participants split into groups for designing a facility to meet the requirements of a design program written by the workshop organizers. The program outlined what the proposed art center should contain, such as an auditorium, a gallery, an education center, offices, storage, and toilets. The program also described in general terms where the building is, e.g., in a city on the Eastern seaboard, and what the climate would be. Since the workshop groups were creating many of their own rules as they progressed, some changed the criteriato suit their own preferences and thus the Eastern city building could become a South- western suburban site. A universal sentiment appeared by the end of the day: Fitting the program into a building was the least impor- tant thing that happened: Whore everyone came into agree, merit was in the importance of the process of creating an axis center finding when to bring inthe specialists in fundraising, realestatq-,architecture, engineering, eco- nomics. etc People who had not lived through a real en- counter with developing a building expressed amazement at the complexity and nun her of steps to be taken before any architectural sketches could be propped up on an easel for the admiration ofarts commissioners, donors, municipal officers, and the general public Working through the steps also uncovered a ques, hon that hadn't occurred to many participants Do we really need an arts center, particularlyifthe initial motivation is simply that a donor has made a generous Wier? An arts council member from the South said that because of what he learned from the workshop he was going !'o set up a search committee, witn an architect on itto find out if his old city hall really should be renovated for an arts center as everyone, had assumed or whether they should look at alternative old buildings, or even lf would be more eco- nomical to build anew and get the .xact facilities that the city really needs The process of planning requires a great deal of attention, and we hope that workshops such as the Cincin- nati Design-n will help arts people to understand some of the basic steps of the process The previous volume of New Places kr the Artsgave a check ltt of planning steps, and among other topics it discusced three aspect of plan run4 that deserve to be summarized here Make sure you can afford to operate what you are planning to build, look for partners to share the cost of budding and maimtaining your facility, and ensure that your building and its programs will toe accessible to the handicapped.